Brilliant Energy vs. Warforged [Archive] - Wizards Community

Brilliant Energy vs. Warforged [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
ck2001wendt
10-25-06, 10:41 AM Would a Brilliant Energy weapon affect a Warforged (which has the Living Construct sub-type)?
DarknessEternal
10-25-06, 10:52 AM Yes. They are living matter.
__DnD4Life__
10-25-06, 12:09 PM umm..i think you answered the question yourself.
...Warforged (which has the Living Construct sub-type...Note that the Warforged natural armor from the plates would still be added to his AC.
Azdraugnor
10-25-06, 12:54 PM By a strict reading, it wouldn't affect warforged because they are constructs, and the ability description explicitly states it can't harm constructs. But it wouldn't be a stretch to allow it to harm Warforged (I would rule it did).
However, the Warforged's armor plates are an armor bonus, not natural armor, so they would not apply.
Patrick Draken-Korin
10-25-06, 01:42 PM Warforged don't have natural armor. They have composite plating which grants an armor bonus. But the armor bonus would still apply because it is part of the creature.

The brilliant weapon information wasn't written to include creatures that had living armor; for instance a symbiont (or other living suit of armor, such as bio-engineered junk from some d20 future setting) would still be effective against a brilliant energy weapon even though they grant an armor bonus rather than a natural armor bonus.

Yes, warforged are harmed by brilliant energy, and yes their composite plating is effective for their AC.

Note that a warforged that didn't have the living construct type (warforged titan) wouldn't be affected by brilliant energy weapons.

The grafted armor of the ragewalker or ironclad mauler is removable and not part of the creature, though it is of no use to any other creature. Grafted armor isn't effective against brilliant energy weapons.

Composite plating is the one example (that I know about) where the armor bonus is actually part of the creature. The reason they did it that way, of course, was to prevenmt the warforged from having a natural armor bonus in addirtion to wearing armor (a nat armor bonus is worth LA, but composite plating is almost a penalty as it's equal to leather armor and takes up the slot for enchanted armor).
DarknessEternal
10-25-06, 05:07 PM By a strict reading, it wouldn't affect warforged because they are constructs,
Incorrect. Warforged are not Constructs. They are Living Constructs. Aside from having the same word in the name, they are defined by entirely different rules.
Greyman
10-25-06, 07:39 PM Incorrect. Warforged are not Constructs. They are Living Constructs. Aside from having the same word in the name, they are defined by entirely different rules.No, it was correct as far as it goes. Warforged are Constructs with the Living Construct (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_livingconstructsubtype&alpha=) subtype. They are constructs in every way, except where the subtype modifies their traits.

However, Brilliant Energy weapons cannot harm Constructs, Undead, or Objects because they are not made of living matter. This is a case where the subtype implicitly overrides the type, since Living Constructs are living beings, thus composed of living matter.
Vegepygmy
10-25-06, 07:42 PM Incorrect. Warforged are not Constructs. They are Living Constructs. Aside from having the same word in the name, they are defined by entirely different rules.Bah. Warforged are most certainly constructs. There is no "living construct" type. A warforged's type (and subtype) is: Construct (living).

Hmm. Greyman beat me to it. Oh, well. :)

Nevertheless, I agree that they are affected by brilliant energy weapons, because they are living creatures. Those who say the ability description explicitly lists "constructs" as not being affected are ignoring the fact that when the text was written, there was no such thing as a living construct. The context of the ability is clear: undead and constructs are unaffected because they are not alive; therefore, a construct who is alive should not be immune.
SageBahamut
10-25-06, 08:26 PM Aside from the massive issues I have regarding the existance of the warforged as a race, I must offer this:

One way or the other.

Either the Warforged is Entirely a construct (and thus ignores BE weapons entirely) or the whole thing is alive (And thus its "I have natural armor that doesn't count as natural armor" racial armor counts). To rule that they ARE affected, AND their *ahem* half-hearted Armor doesn't help them... That's like saying "let's give the Fighter a few less Feats". Why kick a man when he's down?
Arvagor
10-25-06, 10:17 PM Bah. Warforged are most certainly constructs. There is no "living construct" type. A warforged's type (and subtype) is: Construct (living).FWIW, the "default" entry for warforged in the MM3 indicates they are a "Medium Construct (Living construct)" ...
Xeviat-DM
10-26-06, 01:34 AM I vote just changing Brilliant Energy to have the weapon attack as a Touch attack or ranged touch attack, instead of this situational ignores armor and shield but not natural armor ... especially when standard NPC and monster entries list AC, Touch AC, and Flat-Footed AC, not Brilliant Energy AC.

Additionally, for DMs who use primarily NPCs rather than monsters, Brilliant Energy is much more powerful than in a game where the DM uses monsters primarily.

So yeah, I vote to change it to a touch attack for simplicity; make it a lightsaber.
Karak_Nechot
10-26-06, 03:00 AM I vote just changing Brilliant Energy to have the weapon attack as a Touch attack or ranged touch attack, instead of this situational ignores armor and shield but not natural armor ... especially when standard NPC and monster entries list AC, Touch AC, and Flat-Footed AC, not Brilliant Energy AC.

Additionally, for DMs who use primarily NPCs rather than monsters, Brilliant Energy is much more powerful than in a game where the DM uses monsters primarily.

So yeah, I vote to change it to a touch attack for simplicity; make it a lightsaber.

I'm for that. I was just about to hand out a brilliant energy greataxe in one of my last games, until I looked it over and saw how worthless it really is in my campaign. I usually run a lot more monsters than NPCs, so a brilliant energy weapon tends to be not worth the +4 equivalence.

It might be too powerful against creatures with a ridiculous natural armor bonus, like dragons, however. Need to look it over some more, but, as it stands, a touch attack is not a terrible idea, especially since it's worthless against undead, constructs, and objects.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ck2001wendt 10-25-06, 10:41 AM	Would a Brilliant Energy weapon affect a Warforged (which has the Living Construct sub-type)?
DarknessEternal 10-25-06, 10:52 AM	Yes. They are living matter.
__DnD4Life__ 10-25-06, 12:09 PM	umm..i think you answered the question yourself. ...Warforged (which has the Living Construct sub-type...Note that the Warforged natural armor from the plates would still be added to his AC.
Azdraugnor 10-25-06, 12:54 PM	By a strict reading, it wouldn't affect warforged because they are constructs, and the ability description explicitly states it can't harm constructs. But it wouldn't be a stretch to allow it to harm Warforged (I would rule it did). However, the Warforged's armor plates are an armor bonus, not natural armor, so they would not apply.
Patrick Draken-Korin 10-25-06, 01:42 PM	Warforged don't have natural armor. They have composite plating which grants an armor bonus. But the armor bonus would still apply because it is part of the creature. The brilliant weapon information wasn't written to include creatures that had living armor; for instance a symbiont (or other living suit of armor, such as bio-engineered junk from some d20 future setting) would still be effective against a brilliant energy weapon even though they grant an armor bonus rather than a natural armor bonus. Yes, warforged are harmed by brilliant energy, and yes their composite plating is effective for their AC. Note that a warforged that didn't have the living construct type (warforged titan) wouldn't be affected by brilliant energy weapons. The grafted armor of the ragewalker or ironclad mauler is removable and not part of the creature, though it is of no use to any other creature. Grafted armor isn't effective against brilliant energy weapons. Composite plating is the one example (that I know about) where the armor bonus is actually part of the creature. The reason they did it that way, of course, was to prevenmt the warforged from having a natural armor bonus in addirtion to wearing armor (a nat armor bonus is worth LA, but composite plating is almost a penalty as it's equal to leather armor and takes up the slot for enchanted armor).
DarknessEternal 10-25-06, 05:07 PM	By a strict reading, it wouldn't affect warforged because they are constructs, Incorrect. Warforged are not Constructs. They are Living Constructs. Aside from having the same word in the name, they are defined by entirely different rules.
Greyman 10-25-06, 07:39 PM	Incorrect. Warforged are not Constructs. They are Living Constructs. Aside from having the same word in the name, they are defined by entirely different rules.No, it was correct as far as it goes. Warforged are Constructs with the Living Construct (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_livingconstructsubtype&alpha=) subtype. They are constructs in every way, except where the subtype modifies their traits. However, Brilliant Energy weapons cannot harm Constructs, Undead, or Objects because they are not made of living matter. This is a case where the subtype implicitly overrides the type, since Living Constructs are living beings, thus composed of living matter.
Vegepygmy 10-25-06, 07:42 PM	Incorrect. Warforged are not Constructs. They are Living Constructs. Aside from having the same word in the name, they are defined by entirely different rules.Bah. Warforged are most certainly constructs. There is no "living construct" type. A warforged's type (and subtype) is: Construct (living). Hmm. Greyman beat me to it. Oh, well. :) Nevertheless, I agree that they are affected by brilliant energy weapons, because they are living creatures. Those who say the ability description explicitly lists "constructs" as not being affected are ignoring the fact that when the text was written, there was no such thing as a living construct. The context of the ability is clear: undead and constructs are unaffected because they are not alive; therefore, a construct who is alive should not be immune.
SageBahamut 10-25-06, 08:26 PM	Aside from the massive issues I have regarding the existance of the warforged as a race, I must offer this: One way or the other. Either the Warforged is Entirely a construct (and thus ignores BE weapons entirely) or the whole thing is alive (And thus its "I have natural armor that doesn't count as natural armor" racial armor counts). To rule that they ARE affected, AND their ahem half-hearted Armor doesn't help them... That's like saying "let's give the Fighter a few less Feats". Why kick a man when he's down?
Arvagor 10-25-06, 10:17 PM	Bah. Warforged are most certainly constructs. There is no "living construct" type. A warforged's type (and subtype) is: Construct (living).FWIW, the "default" entry for warforged in the MM3 indicates they are a "Medium Construct (Living construct)" ...
Xeviat-DM 10-26-06, 01:34 AM	I vote just changing Brilliant Energy to have the weapon attack as a Touch attack or ranged touch attack, instead of this situational ignores armor and shield but not natural armor ... especially when standard NPC and monster entries list AC, Touch AC, and Flat-Footed AC, not Brilliant Energy AC. Additionally, for DMs who use primarily NPCs rather than monsters, Brilliant Energy is much more powerful than in a game where the DM uses monsters primarily. So yeah, I vote to change it to a touch attack for simplicity; make it a lightsaber.
Karak_Nechot 10-26-06, 03:00 AM	I vote just changing Brilliant Energy to have the weapon attack as a Touch attack or ranged touch attack, instead of this situational ignores armor and shield but not natural armor ... especially when standard NPC and monster entries list AC, Touch AC, and Flat-Footed AC, not Brilliant Energy AC. Additionally, for DMs who use primarily NPCs rather than monsters, Brilliant Energy is much more powerful than in a game where the DM uses monsters primarily. So yeah, I vote to change it to a touch attack for simplicity; make it a lightsaber. I'm for that. I was just about to hand out a brilliant energy greataxe in one of my last games, until I looked it over and saw how worthless it really is in my campaign. I usually run a lot more monsters than NPCs, so a brilliant energy weapon tends to be not worth the +4 equivalence. It might be too powerful against creatures with a ridiculous natural armor bonus, like dragons, however. Need to look it over some more, but, as it stands, a touch attack is not a terrible idea, especially since it's worthless against undead, constructs, and objects.